Skip to main content

About your Search

English 12
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
in your opinion who is intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> well, first. >> name one. >> i don't know. >> why would you say it? >> i didn't have in mind a specific person. >> jennifer: that, too went on and on. after the hearing graham, who up until that point had been none noncommittal told foreign policy magazine that he was unlikely to vote for hagel. others went further. senator dan coates gave a 15 minute speech said he would vote no. hagel's performance did not earn him much praise from the other side of the aisle. here is senator claire mccaskill. >> well, i'm going to be candid. i think chuck hagel is much more comfortable asking questions than answering them. that's one bad habit you get into when you've been in the senate. you can dish it out but sometimes it's a little more difficult to take it. >> jennifer: interesting. she declared claire mccaskill mccaskill, to say if she would vote for him. joining me now is nicholas burns, former u.s. ambassador professor of dip diplomacy. >> thank welcome to "the war room"." >> thank you. >> jennifer: it
respect the prerogatives of the united states senate and the members of congress, you represent the american people, you're the other branch of government, you have the right to know what took place. and i have an obligation commensurate with the, you know, regulations and classifications and privacy and other things at play here, to help you get the answers and we'll do that. i hope we can do it in a noncontentious, appropriate way. >> thank you. could i just mention, i think you would aee with me that every day that goes by in syria, it gets worse. so there is, it seems to me, a very strong impetus that we realize that the present policy is not succeeding and to look at other options to prevent what is going on for now 22 months and 60,000 dead. >> but i think you would agree with me that whatever judgments you make, they have to pass the test of whether or not, you do them, they're actually going to make things better. >> absolutely. >> you have to make a test of the cost analysis in doing that. and i mean all kinds of cos. human life costs, treasure, effect on other countrie
time to examine those in detail. we haven't used the process that is in place here in the united states senate to go through committees and let the committees work through, is this essential to meeting the emergency needs? or can we set this aside and spend a little more time examining it, looking at it to make sure that this is how we want to go forward? we have a habit here of throwing money at things under an emergency category and then later finding out that, one, it wasn't an emergency where the money went. and, number two, it was misspent and not effective. we simply can't afford to keep doing this. once again i want to state we're not here trying to undermine funding for sandy, needed for sandy. some of the things the house did i think are legitimate in terms of saying let's set aside unrelated matters. it doesn't mean we cast them into the dust bin never to be seen again. it simply means let's let those that are not emergency situations be more carefully examined in terms of whether we need that. and if someone does come to the floor, as senator lee is going to do, is my underst
was called a nuclear option in the united states senate. a lot of people don't appreciate how important it was for us to get that done. and chuck schumer and i and others and dick durbin were involved in a bipartisan effort to avert that. thanks to the cooperation of our two leaders we were able to do that. there is a desire for bipartisanship in this. i think we can show the country and the world that we're capable of tackling this issue and moving a terrible issue that has to be resolved in a bipartisan basis and i believe the majority of the american people support such an effort and i want to thank my colleagues again and the ever congenial senator schumer. >> now we'll have even more congenial senator durbin. >> i want to thank my colleagues. john mccain, thanks, we're been down this road before, but i feel very good about our chances this time. chuck, thank you for your leadership on this, i'm sure that marco and bob and lindsey and i understand that you've been the force behind, he's the glue and you're the force and it's worked. we've come to this moment and here we are facing t
citizenship for the 11 million undocumented people now estimated to be living in the united states. but first a border security would be beefed up and the government would improve its tracking of current visa holders. the senators also want to grant more green cards to highly educated immigrants and would allow more lower-skilled workers into the country especially for agricultural purposes. finally, the agreement calls for an effective verification system to crack down on employers who hire workers in the country illegally. in 2006 and 2007, similar efforts to fix the nation's patchwork of immigration laws failed under both republican and democratically controlled congresses but democratic senator chuck sheumer of new york said this time will be different. >> the politics on this issue have been turn upsidedown. for the first time ever there's more political risk in opposing immigration reform than in supporting it. >> ifill: indeed this new effort comes on the heels of last year's election in which president obama won seven of every ten hispanic votes in his victory over republican mitt rom
know, i know a senator from the utah who wrote a memo to the president of the united states after he got elected and said this is a nixon goes to china moment for you. >> which senator from utah would this have been? >> the junior senator. >> which president would this have been? >> the newly elected one. >> i see. >> instead this is the nixon goes to china moment for you. because if you can be the first democratic president in history to say we have to do something about entitlements, you can build enough political capital that you can then do whatever you want in health care or environment or energy or anything else. >> so there's momentum building for something big? something to solve the problem. i want to hear you talking to one another about what that would be. >> the business community, i believe, let me just say would applaud this. in fact, if we knew that there was a real bipartisan push for infrastructure spending, it might help us keep two factories open. however -- >> really? >> absolutely. because it would be -- it would be work. it would be work. we need tractors. we ne
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)